The perversity of the order granting anticipatory bail is a ground for its cancellation, and relevant medical opinions and witness statements should be considered in the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - We have heard five applications for cancellation of anticipatory bail analogously as they emanate out of the same police case. CRM (DB) 1519 of 2022, CRM (DB) 1520 of 2022 and CRM (DB) 1527 of 2022 have been filed challenging the order dated March 2, 2022 while CRM (DB) 1522 of 2022 and CRM (DB) 1525 of 2022 have been filed challenging the order dated February 28, 2022.

2. Learned advocate appearing for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has submitted that, the learned Judge passed the orders granting anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties mechanically and without considering the relevant materials in the case diary. He has submitted that, the victim died on May 29, 2021. He has referred to the primary post mortem report of the victim dated May 29, 2021 and submitted that, the post mortem does not contain correct reasons for the cause of death. The investigations of the police case had been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigations on August 28, 2021 pursuant an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court relating to post poll violence. Subsequent to CBI having taken over the investigations, witnesses came forward and recorded statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

He has referred to the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code of eye witnesses and submitted that, the victim was assaulted and murdered.

3. In support of the contention that the victim had been murdered, learned advocate appearing for CBI has relied upon the opinion of the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences dated December 3, 2021. In addition thereto, he has relied upon the statement of the doctor who had conducted the post mortem including the response of the doctor dated October 7, 2021.

4. He has contended that, the medical opinion subsequent to the post mortem report has stated that the victim was murdered. The learned Judge while granting the anticipatory bail had failed to take into consideration the opinion dated December 3, 2021 and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Learned advocate appearing for CBI has submitted that, CBI filed charge sheet on December 31, 2021. The Court had granted anticipatory bail to two of the opposite parties on February 20, 2022 and three of the opposite parties on March 2, 2022. In both the situations, the learned Judge had failed to take into account the charge sheet submitted by the CBI as well as the materials in the case diary and in particular the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code implicating all the opposite parties.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that, none of the opposite parties are guilty on any post bail misconduct. He has highlighted the period of time that has elapsed from the date of order granting anticipatory bail to the date of the making of the application for cancellation. He has submitted that, an order cancelling anticipatory bail will seriously prejudice the opposite parties more so when none of the opposite parties are guilty of any post bail misconduct.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated March 2, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 663 of 2022 which is one of the orders granting anticipatory bail to one of the opposite parties. He has submitted that, attention of the Court had been drawn to the fact of filling of charge sheet by the CBI. The Court had the benefit of the case diary. Elaborate submissions had been made on behalf of both the parties before the learned Court. The Court had been assisted by the learned advocate appearing for CBI. Therefore, the contentions of CBI in the present application that the learned Judge had failed to consider the relevant materials in the case diary is misplaced. He has submitted that, elaborate reasons are not required to be given by learned Judge while granting order for anticipa